On Federalism

Here's a lecture for my class on federalism. I expand on the video Crash Course: Government and Politics #4, which does do a good job of laying out some basic issues. I think you might want a look at my critique.

I want to talk about federalism. You've watched the Crash Course: Government and Politics with Craig Benzine on federalism. Like all Crash Course videos, it throws so much at you at once that it is hard to digest. I hope you got a few notes. What I'm going to try to do for the next few minutes is give you some things to think about while amending some of Craig's points of emphasis. My argument is that political scientists may use the topic of federalism to dodge some really critical issues in American life. It is easier to talk about power in the abstract or what the budget is or who spends what rather than deal with how cruel and arbitrary the government can sometimes be.

So the first thing to know about federalism is this: there is the state government and the federal government, and they both have power. Yes, there are more layers of government than this: there's city government (think Odessa and how the water is terrible because the city government refuses to fix the pipes). There's county government (think West Odessa, where there is no city government, but Ector County's authority still matters). City and county aren't really what we're going to talk about today. We're interested in states, places like Texas and California and New York and New Jersey and 46 others. And there's a lot on the line: Texas, if it were an independent country, would be the 8th largest economy on earth, with a GDP well over 2 trillion dollars. We want to know about federalism because we want to understand how much power Texas has compared to the federal government.

Why do we want to know this? Well, because of the complicated relationship between power and freedom. Federalism is an old solution to a perennial problem. If you were a small city-state, like Athens in Ancient Greece, how could you possibly expect to stay free against a giant empire like the Persians? I don't want to sit here and tell you that Athens was completely innocent and non-imperial, but they had less power than Persia, and the question is how a city can defend itself against an empire. The answer is some sort of federation: if you can get various city-states, for example, to unite, you can exert the power of an empire while keeping the cities within the federation relatively independent.

Federalism shows in ancient political practice and finds its way to modern political theory. Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, calls Virginia "my country." Because we're in Texas, we can relate. Early America is playing with the idea that the states have extremely distinct and unique politics, cultures, and religions. The states would be more like Utah and Texas as opposed to Delaware and Pennsylvania. More like France and Italy, to be honest. Distinct nations united by a federal government.

You can see that this is a completely different conception than the one we use today. We think of freedom as centered on individual rights. You, as an individual, have free speech (1st amendment), a right to own a gun (2nd amendment), rights to due process (14th amendment) and trial by jury (7th amendment). But another era in American political thinking was focused on the freedom to make a state whatever you wanted it to be. We would consider paying taxes to a church a violation of the 1st amendment and our rights concerning religion. But Connecticut residents paid taxes until 1818 to support the Congregationalist Church; Massachusetts didn't separate church and state until 1833.

What we need to emphasize is that individual rights and the power to make a state a certain way can be in dramatic tension. This is not something which Craig's Crash Course video does a great job of illustrating. I want you to think about the video you just watched through the lens of dealing with slavery and establishing civil rights. Notice how severe the tension between individual rights and what states want to do can be? Historically, the states have been horrific violators of rights and the federal government has had to intervene to make sure U.S. citizens are treated fairly and with dignity.

States have been horrific violators of rights because they have incredible amounts of power. They have "police powers," which is exactly what it sounds like. I'd like you to note the graphic that was on the video when Craig discussed "police powers:"

Look at the powers of the states under dual federalism: property laws, inheritance, laws, commercial laws, banking laws, corporate laws, insurance, morality, public health, education, criminal laws, land use, elections, local government. Does that look like a small amount of power to you? Power over "morality" and "crime" belongs to the states? For this reason, while we technically do not use the term dual federalism any more, I want you to know it. It is of enormous consequence. It points to a tension we have in American life today: we don't know what freedom means. We flip between it meaning individual rights and the rights of the states, i.e. the right to build a culture or legacy we want. We're inconsistent because our constitutional heritage is inconsistent.

[note to substitute instructor: this is a good place to stop the video for a few minutes and discuss what you think about federalism or how you teach the concept. I fully welcome you to say "Dr. Karra is making stuff up."]

Alright. We're back. The next thing I want to talk about in the video is the jump to "cooperative federalism." Craig talks about this stemming from the New Deal. Once upon a time, the federal government was relatively small and didn't do much for people. There was barely a social safety net. Everyone was like "I'm going to work at the factory or at a farm." I guess they all played baseball. The few people who were broke, I guess, wore barrels because they couldn't afford clothes. Then the stock market collapsed and millions of people were out of work. The thing to understand is that people were living their every day lives, much like us, thinking they could pretty much control their destiny without serious government help. The Great Depression changes that perspective fast: you can't even get a job because there simply aren't any. 25% of the workforce becomes unemployed. You don't just need government help. You need it to hire drastically more people, you need it to make sure things don't collapse further, you need it to monitor markets and make sure banks and companies don't mess things up too much for everyone else.

That is all true, and I need you guys to think about these things especially because many of us are in a "if I just do my thing, everything will work out" mindset. And that's not true! I'm lucky to have the job I have and I can't even think for a moment about homeownership! I have to hope I can hold this job, that it doesn't disappear with budget cuts or something.

But I also need you to reflect on how "cooperative federalism" and the New Deal, the massive expansion of government because of economic collapse, cannot be the whole story. Not even close. The real story is racism. "Cooperative federalism" is neat to talk about, but can be a sterile topic. Reality, unfortunately, is messy. Dual federalism ends up being fundamentally unworkable because of slavery. How can you talk seriously about rights in any way, shape, or form with states dedicated to enslaving other human beings?

After the Civil War, Southern states put in place Jim Crow to destroy the rights of African Americans. Segregated businesses, meaning few places to shop, let alone be employed; no real ability to vote and exercise self-governance; police brutality and mob violence all over the region. People live like this for decades. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, outlawing segregation and racial discrimination in employment, is found constitutional by the Supreme Court via the commerce clause. Yes, it is true, as Craig says, that the commerce clause helps New Deal era legislation. But the real power of the federal government over the states is that Congress' power over interstate commerce allows it to enforce civil rights. This is obviously not a small deal, and it is very striking to me that the Crash Course video does not elaborate on this more.

I firmly believe you have to make the material real for yourself, relevant to your lives. And it is just so important to reiterate that the world you live in did not come from nowhere and does not have to be this way. Modern science is relatively recent. Universal education moreso. And in the case of desegregated schools, Odessa desegregated in 1982. Brown v. Board, the case that ordered schools to desegregate, was a 1954 decision. I can't really emphasize enough that anything you see around us is the product of some very complicated processes. Nothing is simple, nothing can be taken for granted.

With that in mind, there are two more things I'd like you to note from the federalism video. First, grants-in-aid. This a classic example of language hiding what's really at stake. "Grants-in-aid" are not really optional. The states depend heavily on federal grants-in-aid to make sure people get food and healthcare. Something like 30% of a given state's budget is grants-in-aid. If people in a state are talking about seceding, i.e. leaving the United States, it is worth asking who will pay the benefits those in poverty need. Second, block grants, which in my experience are ripe for corruption. Congress gives money and lets states do what they want for a purpose they specify but may not follow up on. So in Georgia, what the state was doing was kicking needy mothers off of welfare so they could use the funds Congress specified for those mothers elsewhere.

In sum: federalism is really the question of freedom. We've got two conflicting ideas about what freedom means. Is freedom about individual rights? Or building a state culture a certain way? Obviously the latter entailed inhuman behavior, with people showing no respect whatsoever for the rights and dignity of others. But that idea of freedom is still operative in how the federal and state governments relate. And as you guys are thinking about what has to change, maybe being clearer about individual rights translating into dignity and genuine opportunities has to be a priority.